The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Loafing Oaf

JDD wrote: »

As it is, the foetus does not have an equal right to life to the mother. Where there is a significant threat, as opposed to an absolute certainty, to the life of the mother you are allowed to have an abortion.

I've always thought if you really believed in an equal right to life, you would only countenance an abortion if there was at least a 50% chance the woman would die. And that is clearly not practice in Irish hospitals, and never has been...

Graces7

kylith wrote: »

While it is incapable of surviving independently of the mother it is not a separate entity. It is part of her system.

So a clone? He or she is an individual human being, as each of us was and is. So you are advocating self-mutilation?

You are destroying a life and the most vulnerable and innocent and pure life there is. Yes, dependent, trusting .

Graces7

January wrote: »

What the forced birthers seem to forget is that sometimes there's more than a woman and a foetus being affected. Sometimes there's a husband and already born children that also have to be taken into consideration. But sure **** them as long as another little baby is born its all good. If the family can't afford to eat because of that that's grand isn't it?

No good ever came of killing another to serve self. If the family is too poor then they should have practised safe sex.

It is called taking responsibility for your own actions. Rather than punishing an innocent for your mistakes.

Zubeneschamali

Graces7 wrote: »

It is called taking responsibility for your own actions.

Yes, away to England with you! And we'll never speak of this again.

Good old Ireland.

kylith

Graces7 wrote: »

So a clone? He or she is an individual human being, as each of us was and is. So you are advocating self-mutilation?

You are destroying a life and the most vulnerable and innocent and pure life there is. Yes, dependent, trusting .

While it is genetically different it is connected to her bloodstream and dependant in that for nourishment. It is living tissue, but it is not ‘alive’; certainly not in the way the woman is. For a start it does not have a functioning brain.

Going on about it being innocent and pure is just an appeal to emotion. It could be the next Hitler or John Wayne Gacey or Margaret Thatcher.

robarmstrong

Graces7 wrote: »

No good ever came of killing another to serve self. If the family is too poor then they should have practised safe sex.

It is called taking responsibility for your own actions. Rather than punishing an innocent for your mistakes.

Sorry, but you are aware that pregnancies still occur during "safe" sex?

There are no contraceptives out there readily available that are 100% safe in this country, unless you go the sterility route.

How are you posting on boards from the 50's anyways?

nozzferrahhtoo

Graces7 wrote: »

He or she is an individual human being, as each of us was and is.

All loaded words which mask the simple fact that it is not even remotely an individual PERSON because every aspect that we would meaningfully define that by is wholly and completely absent in a fetus at the point of usual termination.

Graces7 wrote: »

No good ever came of killing another to serve self.

Yet we do it all the time, like in our meat food industry. There too we are killing others to serve the self. And those others are a LOT more sentient and conscious than a 12 week gestated fetus which is the sentience equivalent of a rock at that point.

So if we are able to happily kill THAT life all the time, than what attributes exactly is it that afford the fetus more concern? I think you will find it has no such attributes, rather you are mediating everything on attributes it may have in the future and then applying them back along the time line.

Graces7 wrote: »

If the family is too poor then they should have practised safe sex.

Firstly, who said they did not? Many do and still get pregnant.

Secondly, you assume the financial concerns came into play BEFORE they had sex, and not after. This is a very unsafe assumption.

Graces7 wrote: »

It is called taking responsibility for your own actions. Rather than punishing an innocent for your mistakes.

Bull from you there alas. The ACTUAL meaning of taking responsibility is to evaluate your situation, take stock of and consider ALL your options, and then maturely and intelligently choose the best option for you.

The meaning YOU appear to imagine "taking responsibility" has is "Do what I would do, and do not do what I would not, otherwise you are irresponsible". And that definition deserves only a prescription of a healthy dose of getting over yourself.

NuMarvel

Graces7 wrote: »

No good ever came of killing another to serve self. If the family is too poor then they should have practised safe sex.

It is called taking responsibility for your own actions. Rather than punishing an innocent for your mistakes.

If only it was as simple as that.

Contraception isn't 100% effective. One organisation in the UK found that half the women who use their services were using contraception at the time.

Then of course there's the fact that pharmacists here can refuse to dispense medication that they have a "conscientious objection" to. So there's no guarantee a woman will be able to get contraception in the first place.

Finally, I'd wager there's a correlation between economic status and knowledge of and access to contraception, i.e. poor families are probably less likely to know about and be able to get effective contraception.

If you really wanted to reduce the incidence of abortion, you'd be better off dealing with the latter two points. Because as we know from our own experience, and can see from around the world, making abortion illegal doesn't stop people having abortions.

kylith

Graces7 wrote: »

No good ever came of killing another to serve self. If the family is too poor then they should have practised safe sex.

It is called taking responsibility for your own actions. Rather than punishing an innocent for your mistakes.

And if they did practise safe sex? And the contraceptive failed? Then what? Sucks to be them?

Terminating a pregnancy IS taking responsibility.

Mr. CooL ICE

Graces7 wrote: »

No good ever came of killing another to serve self. If the family is too poor then they should have practised safe sex.

Celibates telling people about sex. Some things never change.

david75

Folks. Some much needed laughter. This thread on twitter is laugh out loud funny and lampooning John McGuirk for his lies about that ‘nurse’ and the ongoing lies around it. Do yourselves a favour and read it. You won’t need a twitter account just open in a new pages and read the whole thread.

A much needed moment of levity targeting the stupidity and buffoonery of this clown trying to con the entire country with his lies in the name of save the 8th

https://twitter.com/ruthiefizz/status/974054153411579905?s=21

robarmstrong

I think pro-life is running out of options as they're being countered at every turn.

"ABORTION IS BARBARIC AND GOES AGAINST GOD!!!" - so does having mass graves for babies that were stillborn, ill or just tossed aside by followers of their similar ideology.

"YOU'RE MURDERING A BABY!!!" - see above.

"TAKING A LIFE!!!" - completely ignoring the amount of poor souls who were driven to commit suicide due to the abuse suffered upon them by the same followers as previously mentioned. What about all their lives?

"THEY ARE EQUAL" - no, they really are not. One is an existing person, one is not an existing person (yet). It does not make sense to give an unborn human/fetus/zygote/whatever emotional or non emotional terminology priority rights over an existing human, that's just a fallacy.

"IT'LL BE AN ABORTION ON DEMAND FREE FOR ALL THAT CAN HAPPEN AT ANY TIME DURING A PREGNANCY!!" - absolutely not. It's proposed at a cut-off point of 12 weeks, on a case-by-case basis along with mental health and physical health assessments to ensure that this right is not abused.

Any other arguments?

.......

This post has been deleted.

Bannasidhe

robarmstrong wrote: »

I think pro-life is running out of options as they're being countered at every turn.

"ABORTION IS BARBARIC AND GOES AGAINST GOD!!!" - so does having mass graves for babies that were stillborn, ill or just tossed aside by followers of their similar ideology.

"YOU'RE MURDERING A BABY!!!" - see above.

"TAKING A LIFE!!!" - completely ignoring the amount of poor souls who were driven to commit suicide due to the abuse suffered upon them by the same followers as previously mentioned. What about all their lives?

"THEY ARE EQUAL" - no, they really are not. One is an existing person, one is not an existing person (yet). It does not make sense to give an unborn human/fetus/zygote/whatever emotional or non emotional terminology priority rights over an existing human, that's just a fallacy.

"IT'LL BE AN ABORTION ON DEMAND FREE FOR ALL THAT CAN HAPPEN AT ANY TIME DURING A PREGNANCY!!" - absolutely not. It's proposed at a cut-off point of 12 weeks, on a case-by-case basis along with mental health and physical health assessments to ensure that this right is not abused.

Any other arguments?

PEOPLE (i.e. women) KNOW THE RISK WHEN THEY HAVE SEX - soooo - sex is only for procreation then...hahahahahahahahaha.... looks like 'some people' might have a few 'issues'.

PEOPLE (i.e women) NEED TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY. - cos nothing encourages good parenting like an unwanted child.

ALL LIFE IS PRECIOUS!! - do the HSE know that as I can't help but notice a lot of people (including children) are denied vital medical treatment on the grounds of cost ? - also... how many refugees ya'll think we should take?

USING ABORTION AS CONTRACEPTION!! - here is a dictionary. Knock yourself out.

ohnonotgmail

robarmstrong wrote: »

I think pro-life is running out of options as they're being countered at every turn.

"ABORTION IS BARBARIC AND GOES AGAINST GOD!!!" - so does having mass graves for babies that were stillborn, ill or just tossed aside by followers of their similar ideology.

"YOU'RE MURDERING A BABY!!!" - see above.

"TAKING A LIFE!!!" - completely ignoring the amount of poor souls who were driven to commit suicide due to the abuse suffered upon them by the same followers as previously mentioned. What about all their lives?

"THEY ARE EQUAL" - no, they really are not. One is an existing person, one is not an existing person (yet). It does not make sense to give an unborn human/fetus/zygote/whatever emotional or non emotional terminology priority rights over an existing human, that's just a fallacy.

"IT'LL BE AN ABORTION ON DEMAND FREE FOR ALL THAT CAN HAPPEN AT ANY TIME DURING A PREGNANCY!!" - absolutely not. It's proposed at a cut-off point of 12 weeks, on a case-by-case basis along with mental health and physical health assessments to ensure that this right is not abused.

Any other arguments?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

PEOPLE (i.e. women) KNOW THE RISK WHEN THEY HAVE SEX - soooo - sex is only for procreation then...hahahahahahahahaha.... looks like 'some people' might have a few 'issues'.

PEOPLE (i.e women) NEED TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY. - cos nothing encourages good parenting like an unwanted child.

ALL LIFE IS PRECIOUS!! - do the HSE know that as I can't help but notice a lot of people (including children) are denied vital medical treatment on the grounds of cost ? - also... how many refugees ya'll think we should take?

USING ABORTION AS CONTRACEPTION!! - here is a dictionary. Knock yourself out.

we really need to put these as a sticky at the top of the thread.

NuMarvel

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

Celibates telling people about sex. Some things never change.

What's funny to me is how today's supporters of the 8th talk about the availability of contraception, but the original proponents of the 8th were all staunch anti-contraception campaigners.

david75

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

we really need to put these as a sticky at the top of the thread.

I think we’d all vote for that.

robarmstrong

NuMarvel wrote: »

What's funny to me is how today's supporters of the 8th talk about the availability of contraception, but the original proponents of the 8th were all staunch anti-contraception campaigners.

I've put more cents* into me pockets than they've put into their arguments :P


*because I know I'll get grammer-fied.

Mr. CooL ICE

NuMarvel wrote: »

What's funny to me is how today's supporters of the 8th talk about the availability of contraception, but the original proponents of the 8th were all staunch anti-contraception campaigners.

Same with SSM and civil partnerships. Round and round and round we go.

PhoenixParker

I feel like a note is warranted on contraception for anyone reading this and thinking "they should have just used contraception" is maybe a semi-decent argument.

The rates of failure given for contraception are per year.

Take the pill, which with perfect use, has a 99% effective rate. That means one woman in 100 will get pregnant every year. Sounds like there's a tiny risk of failure

But

Women are fertile for about 27 years (18-45 approx), so a woman taking the pill throughout her fertile years has something like a 1 in 4 chance of an unexpected pregnancy in a woman's lifetime using one of the most reliable methods perfectly.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Graces7 wrote: »

No good ever came of killing another to serve self. If the family is too poor then they should have practised safe sex.

It is called taking responsibility for your own actions. Rather than punishing an innocent for your mistakes.

With all due respect you’ve no idea what you’re talking about. With the best intentions in the world of being careful, accidents happen. You’re trying to slut shame women because they’ve had sex. Sex isn’t a bad thing that deserves punishment. It’s an intimate act between two consenting adults and sometimes accidents happen, the pill isn’t effective or the condom breaks and people find themselves in an awful situation whereby they aren’t emotionally or physically or mentally ready to become a parent. A child deserves a home that it’ll be safe and loved in and if for whatever reason a woman finds herself unable to offer that then her body should not be an incubator and another defenseless child forced upon her for care.

I know personally I have a condition that’s not under control at the moment and my consultants have warned me not to get pregnant, as if by some miracle I’m actually fertile right now my body is incapable of growing a healthy baby and I’ve been the child wouldn’t be okay. I am personally against abortion for me, but if it did happen I wouldn’t have any choice really, it wouldn’t be a pregnancy with a happy ending. What am i supposed to do? Abstain from sex because I’m unwell?

Zubeneschamali

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

Same with SSM and civil partnerships. Round and round and round we go.

Many of these people are conservative, not in the Maggie Thatcher political sense, but in the "Stop changing things!" sense.

The actual issues - contraception, divorce, SSM, abortion - they mostly don't have any moral investment in these issues at all. It's why we never hear of anyone campaigning to ban divorce or contraception. They have no vision of where society should go or why, they have no interest in progress of any kind.

It's why they are perfectly fine with abortion of Irish fetuses in the UK - they don't actually care. It's also why, when put to it, they can't muster any arguments for their views. They don't actually hold those views for any particular reason.

They just think all change is bad, and everything used to be better before it changed. It's an attitude rather than an argument.

January

PhoenixParker wrote: »

I feel like a note is warranted on contraception for anyone reading this and thinking "they should have just used contraception" is maybe a semi-decent argument.

The rates of failure given for contraception are per year.

Take the pill, which with perfect use, has a 99% effective rate. That means one woman in 100 will get pregnant every year. Sounds like there's a tiny risk of failure

But

Women are fertile for about 27 years (18-45 approx), so a woman taking the pill throughout her fertile years has something like a 1 in 4 chance of an unexpected pregnancy in a woman's lifetime using one of the most reliable methods perfectly.

18-45? Try from average age of 10 to around age 45.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Neyite

January wrote: »

18-45? Try from average age of 10 to around age 45.

Actually it's closer to her fifties or even mid fifties given that there is often a fertile surge during peri-menopause and before full menopause happens.

So about 40+ years of potential fertility is about average for a woman I would say.

PhoenixParker

January wrote: »

18-45? Try from average age of 10 to around age 45.

18-45 Is the time period used to calculate rates if abortion which is why I went with it.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Also I find it absolutely insane that anyone with any connection to the Catholic Church would have the sheer audocity to say “what about the babies? What about life?” Given their record with children and women of reproductive age, and how they were treated

SusieBlue

Valerie Fat Turbojet wrote: »

Also I find it absolutely insane that anyone with any connection to the Catholic Church would have the sheer audocity to say “what about the babies? What about life?” Given their record with children and women of reproductive age, and how they were treated

If I could thank this twice I would. Hypocrisy of the highest order!

retro:electro

Graces7 wrote: »

No good ever came of killing another to serve self. If the family is too poor then they should have practised safe sex.

It is called taking responsibility for your own actions. Rather than punishing an innocent for your mistakes.

The hypocrisy is strong but frankly not at all surprising, Your Grace.

Havockk

Sierra Eire wrote: »

I am not a "re-reg". This is my first account on this site and I use my username on every website I use. Try googling it. I can't find anything trollish about my question in this thread.

I find it ridiculous that a number of pro-abortion people cry "women's rights!!!" even though healthy little unborn girls are the majority of abortion victims. If you think I am a troll for not buying this "women's rights" pro-abortion argument then you are naive.

OK. So I took your advice and I googled your name.

I found your youtube channel. I know you have hidden it by this stage... unfortunately for you it's still available cached.


Well... well.... well. I see you like mid 20thC German history LOL

Havockk

Ahhh Dave... tis yourself

Oldtree

Havockk wrote: »

Ahhh Dave... tis yourself

Where's Dave from? Was I right in my guess?

Edit: changed my mind, I don't care , hopefully he will go back the hole he crawled out of soon!

Havockk

Sierra Eire wrote: »

I'm a nazi (national socialist) because I don't support murdering babies? I'm not sure that makes any sense.

Definitely not a socialist. I believe in freedom and limited government.

ForestFire

Valerie Fat Turbojet wrote: »

Also I find it absolutely insane that anyone with any connection to the Catholic Church would have the sheer audocity to say “what about the babies? What about life?” Given their record with children and women of reproductive age, and how they were treated

Do you really think the ordinary members of the Catholic church today even knew about Tuam?

Do you not think that even though they are members, they know that what happened there was wrong?

Are you suggestion that members of the Catholic church can never find wrong in anything again because of past wrongs by the church itself?

The pro choice side tactics now seem to be to discredit every pro life arguement based on the poster and their beliefs, rather than the argument itself.

Are you in favour of removing Catholics from the democratic vote n the 8th all together, because of the church?

I know in some cases, with certain posts, it's very hard to resist, but I don't think it's helpful.

I am not practicing Catholic or decided on my vote for the record.

Oldtree

ForestFire wrote: »

Do you really think the ordinary members of the Catholic church today even knew about Tuam?

Do you not think that even though they are members, they know that what happened there was wrong?

Are you suggestion that members of the Catholic church can never find wrong in anything again because of past wrongs by the church itself?

The pro choice side tactics now seem to be to discredit every pro life arguement based on the poster and their beliefs, rather than the argument itself.

Are you in favour of removing Catholics from the democratic vote n the 8th all together, because of the church?

I know in some cases, with certain posts, it's very hard to resist, but I don't think it's helpful.

I am not practicing Catholic or decided on my vote for the record.

I think that a lot of what went on was ignored by many, many Irish people and that fear made many, many Irish people stick their heads in the sand for so long. And yes a lot of Irish people knew what went on. The Catholic mindset of old was so ingrained that it continues today.

No I'm not in favor of anyone having their vote withdrawn, but I think we will see clearly how far we have come in may.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

ForestFire wrote: »

Do you really think the ordinary members of the Catholic church today even knew about Tuam?

Do you not think that even though they are members, they know that what happened there was wrong?

Are you suggestion that members of the Catholic church can never find wrong in anything again because of past wrongs by the church itself?

The pro choice side tactics now seem to be to discredit every pro life arguement based on the poster and their beliefs, rather than the argument itself.

Are you in favour of removing Catholics from the democratic vote n the 8th all together, because of the church?

I know in some cases, with certain posts, it's very hard to resist, but I don't think it's helpful.

I am not practicing Catholic or decided on my vote for the record.

I believe members from the Catholic Church should butt the **** out of issues that don’t concern them. Do you think some mickey dodging aul one of a nun is ever going to have to worry about being refused medical treatment for a serious illness, being cut the entire way to her backside, or left to rot in a bed with sepsis? No she won’t. Does it affect priests? No. So they have no right to be be pontificating about how all life is equal when their very institutions are known for horrific and unspeakable actions against child bearing women and the care of babies, born and unborn. It’s not that long ago since the last laundry closed it’s door on Irish soil. Children from these homes are still fighting tooth and nail to find their birth families and to gain access to birth certs and medical history.

If they had any remorse, sadness or empathy they’d shut their mouths on this issue but they won’t because they’ll never get to grips with not controlling the country and not being allowed to treat women like sluts for having sex.

david75

So all the pro choice groups have coalesced.

https://twitter.com/together4yes/status/974232871895433216?s=21

Ismisejack

robarmstrong wrote: »

The Pro-life side tend to forget that with every forced upon unwanted full term pregnancy they're impeding an actual existing citizen's rights, not a "person in the making".

Are you going to contribute or just drop troll-like soundbites until you're eventually banned? Genuinely curious as you sprint away from any and all replies.

No woman is ever “forced “ into having a pregnancy( unless there the unfortunate victim of a terrible crime that is rape), it is a choice they make, and a woman should think hard before there sure they want a baby, and realise if they are willing to take risks in bed they must be willing to carry any resulting child to birth and thereafter

david75

Ismisejack wrote: »

No woman is ever “forced “ into having a pregnancy( unless there the unfortunate victim of a terrible crime that is rape), it is a choice they make, and a woman should think hard before there sure they want a baby, and realise if they are willing to take risks in bed they must be willing to carry any resulting child to birth and thereafter

Keep saying exactly that. To anyone that will listen. Especially women. See you in May after the result.

robarmstrong

Ismisejack wrote: »

No woman is ever “forced “ into having a pregnancy( unless there the unfortunate victim of a terrible crime that is rape), it is a choice they make, and a woman should think hard before there sure they want a baby, and realise if they are willing to take risks in bed they must be willing to carry any resulting child to birth and thereafter

Ah there he is, the troll is back!

So here let me just discredit your entire little soundbite there mmkay.

Have you comprehended that there is no guaranteed 100% fully effective method of contraception?

Are you indirectly advocating that sex should be used entirely for procreation?

"if they are willing to take risks in bed" - a man could be wearing a condom whilst the lady is on the pill and there is still a chance a little swimmer could make their way through.

Do you want us to just dry-hump one another into oblivion based on your outdated mindset and ideologies?

RobertKK

Prime Time is interesting, no evidence of the retain the 8th of taking foreign money, unlike Repeal the 8th.

david75

RobertKK wrote: »

Prime Time is interesting, no evidence of the retain the 8th of taking foreign money, unlike Repeal the 8th.

I’m selling a huge statue in New York on the Hudson River, while you’re buying everything.

RobertKK

david75 wrote: »

I’m selling a huge statue in New York on the Hudson River, while you’re buying everything.

Is that how repeal the 8th are getting the foreign money?

Ismisejack

robarmstrong wrote: »

Ah there he is, the troll is back!

So here let me just discredit your entire little soundbite there mmkay.

Have you comprehended that there is no guaranteed 100% fully effective method of contraception?

Are you indirectly advocating that sex should be used entirely for procreation?

"if they are willing to take risks in bed" - a man could be wearing a condom whilst the lady is on the pill and there is still a chance a little swimmer could make their way through.

Do you want us to just dry-hump one another into oblivion based on your outdated mindset and ideologies?

No, however one always has to be willing to risk pregnancy if there having sex, as in the event of conception a baby grows and the baby can’t be just killed as it was unintentional, that although through no fault of anyone, killing the baby would be barbaric as that’s what abortion is, baby killing

PopePalpatine

Havockk wrote: »

#LoveBoth

markodaly

RobertKK wrote: »

Prime Time is interesting, no evidence of the retain the 8th of taking foreign money, unlike Repeal the 8th.

Well the repeal the 8th crowd certainly have come out worse here.

Interesting as the the pro choice side always gave out about American money going into Irish pro-life coffers. Now the shoe is on the other foot, are they going to clean up house, or just shout out loudly and point the finger at the other side (with no real proof) as a way to deflect.

Morality eh, such an invisible line.

robarmstrong

Ismisejack wrote: »

No, however one always has to be willing to risk pregnancy if there having sex, as in the event of conception a baby grows and the baby can’t be just killed as it was unintentional, that although through no fault of anyone, killing the baby would be barbaric as that’s what abortion is, baby killing

It's not a baby, it's a fetus.

It hasn't been born, it has not yet become a citizen of Ireland, it is currently residing inside the property of a citizen of Ireland.

Abortion is barbaric? Get a grip mate. So is molesting kids, shoving payouts under parents noses and throwing ill babies into a mass grave in the back arse of nowhere, but I know what the lesser of two evils is here.

What's barbaric is suppressing a woman's right to choose what happens with her own body.

david75

RobertKK wrote: »

Is that how repeal the 8th are getting the foreign money?

All the companies and there are many, registered to the same address as Iona strangely enough, would have and do have ways of funnelling their US dollars.

Not interested in a pissing match about that. There are two different threads about referendum funding in the after hours and politics section.


Want to talk about that you’ll find all your myopic views and conspiracies in those threads.

Be good to keep this one on topic.


*ps whose paying for the thousands of billboard pro life posters nationwide?
Irish donations? Again, I’m selling a giant statue of you want to buy one.

volchitsa

Ismisejack wrote: »

No woman is ever “forced “ into having a pregnancy( unless there the unfortunate victim of a terrible crime that is rape), it is a choice they make, and a woman should think hard before there sure they want a baby, and realise if they are willing to take risks in bed they must be willing to carry any resulting child to birth and thereafter

What about the man, if he is "willing to take risks in bed",what's his punishment?

markodaly

david75 wrote: »

All the companies and there are many, registered to the same address as Iona strangely enough, would have and do have ways of funnelling their US dollars.

Not interested in a pissing match about that. There are two different threads about referendum funding in the after hours and politics section.


Want to talk about that you’ll find all your myopic views and conspiracies in those threads.

Be good to keep this one on topic.


*ps whose paying for the thousands of billboard pro life posters nationwide?
Irish donations? Again, I’m selling a giant statue of you want to buy one.

So, thats the deflection tactic so.

Shame, as I thought the pro-choice crowd at least were more honest and had integrity.